THOMAS TASCHINGER: Obama's remark exposed his real view of government

By Thomas Taschinger

Published 1:30 am, Sunday, July 22, 2012

It's amazing how offhand remarks like "You didn't build that" can get the attention of voters who otherwise ignore 90 percent of what a presidential candidate says. President Obama, the author of that memorable (or infamous phrase) now joins a long list of confident, experienced orators who is scrambling to "clarify" what he really meant.

We'll see if he can do that, or if the remark's significance will fade away. Just a few weeks ago he said, "The private sector is doing fine," and it didn't do his campaign serious damage. Mitt Romney has also made his share of gaffes, and if he does again soon that will push this gaffe to the back pages.

For now, however, president is doing damage control after a recent speech in Virginia. For the record, the longer version of the quote is:

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Republicans pounced on that, and with good reason. Obama clearly seemed to be giving government the credit for a new business by creating the conditions that allowed it to flourish. He appeared to undercut the actual owner of the company and portrayed him as someone just along for the ride.

Not so, insisted Democrats. The president was just trying to emphasize how public spending sets up an environment that allows entrepreneurs to do their thing. Heck, you could have a great idea in some poor Third World country, but your widgets would never get sold or distributed because everything else was so primitive.

On this one, the GOP is right. Obama wasn't completely discounting the role of the individual, but he gave government way too much credit. In fact, it's hard to argue otherwise when his own mouth put out the words, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." There's nothing vague about that.

Which is not surprising, because Democrats are the party of government. They love it, all its intricacies and good intentions, and so they also love the tax revenues that pay for it. And if there aren't enough of them, well then deficit spending is OK too.

Granted, Republicans can spend with the best of them, and they're quite fond of some types of government spending too. But their focus is the private sector, not the public, and people who aren't government employees.

In the end, that's what November's election is all about - more government or less. Romney and Obama offer stark contrasts there, so the choice is obvious.

Years ago, Republicans usually won that debate. From 1968 to 1988 they won four of five presidential elections. But Democrats have been doing much better, and a big reason is, well, big government.

If you get a check from the government at any level, whether pay or benefits, you want to keep the gravy train rolling. You don't to hear about belt-tightening or cutbacks. You will be strongly inclined to vote for Democrats. And Democratic politicians know that, so they keep voting for new programs that put money in your pocket.

Eventually, of course, a state or the nation could have more voters who depend on government than those who don't. When that happens, it's difficult or impossible for Republicans to win.

November's election will show many things - which man is the better leader, which one can inspire more confidence. But if will also show something else, something that will probably decide the outcome: whether taxpayers still outnumber tax receivers.

---------------------------------

Thomas Taschinger, TTaschinger@BeaumontEnterprise.com, is opinions editor of The Beaumont Enterprise. Follow him on Twitter at @PoliticalTom